Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he would "never" have appointed Lord Peter Mandelson as his ambassador to the United States if he had known the full extent of the peer's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer made the comment on Thursday, a day after publicly backing Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions and then removing him from the diplomatic role. The prime minister said Mandelson had gone through a proper due diligence process before his appointment but that new information had changed his view.
"Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him," Starmer said, explaining his decision to sack the Labour peer. The dismissal followed reporting by Bloomberg that published emails showing messages Mandelson sent to Epstein in 2008 after Epstein's guilty plea.
The emails, as reported, contained supportive language from Mandelson to Epstein following the 2008 conviction. Starmer's office said the appointment had been subject to the usual checks but that the newly surfaced material had prompted the prime minister to reconsider the suitability of Mandelson representing the UK in Washington.
Lord Mandelson is a Labour peer and former cabinet minister whose selection as ambassador to the United States had been announced previously by Downing Street. He had received public endorsement from the prime minister during Wednesday's Prime Minister's Questions, but the emergence of the Bloomberg report led to his removal the following day.
Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 guilty plea in the United States has long generated public scrutiny and renewed attention as additional links and correspondence have emerged involving prominent figures. The prime minister framed his decision as one of judgment following the disclosure of material he said was not foreseen at the time of appointment.
Downing Street did not provide further detail on what aspects of the emails had not been uncovered during the due diligence process or whether any additional inquiries into the appointment process would be launched. Lord Mandelson has not made an immediate public statement responding to the reports or to his removal from the post.
The episode underscores the political sensitivity of diplomatic appointments and the potential consequences when new information about nominees emerges after formal endorsement. It also adds to broader questions about the extent of Epstein's contacts and the scrutiny applied to those who communicated with him, particularly in light of his criminal convictions and subsequent investigations.